Food for thought: An IP system.
So, I mentioned to Steve (recent date, not first bf) on date #1 that I thought IP was broken and needed to be reworked. As a consequence of that conversation, some ideas have started to crystalize.
The big picture flaws I see are consolidation of IP into the hands of large corporations, such that any rewards of creativity are dependent on your employer (the same individual that made the engineer/inventor sign away his rights in the first place), and similar effects for artists. Further, it enables profit-maximizing entities an amazing consolidation of power, which, of course, breeds a desire for more power, the better to maximize profit, without those pesky legal barriers.
Another interesting effect (noted in Guns, Germs, and Steel) is that invention is a process not unlike the lottery, where few people make it big, but those who do make it big, got there because of all the people who did not make it big (standing on the shoulders of giants, and all that.) I don’t think this is as applicable to artistic IP, but haven’t thought as much about that. This lottery-esque setup is one reason we have our current ip situation.
Another is that creative efforts (at least technological ones) are capital intensive. A new solution would have to provide an incentive to holders of capital to get involved in the process.
Basically, the idea I have in mind is that a person would never be able to sign over ip. An alternative, which I am more ambivalent about would be not being able to sign over ip until after it has been produced.
Under the original proposal, one could auction off the right to produce n units of whatever. IP owner can sell limited rights. Monopolies can be prevented/limited by mandating that production rights be made available to a few or several parties, in the case of books, you can sell to one house that specializes in unbound, ultra cheap printing, and some that specialize in hardbacks with handtooled leather at obscene prices, as well as the standard options now available.
N% goes to the IP Owner(s), divided equitably, M% goes to assisting agencies (owner of the particle accelerator, etc), L% goes to preceding generations of patents (using a decay scheme or something related, L/2% going to the first generation, L/4% to the generation before that, etc), and K% goes to the agency handling the immense beauracratic overhead I’m proposing. (Positions elected by patent/copyright holders, including artistic reps by medium and scientific/engineering reps by field, with government oversight and public access to records).
This office of intellectual property could assist promising looking research, maybe even research of signs of promising/lucrative research efforts.
Flaws:
Bundled goods: how much is the carbuerator worth, vs the spark plugs (bad example since they _are_ sold separately, but hopefully you get the idea.
Entry costs: how to support the inventor in the initial, unprofitable stages.
The latter can be partially addressed by the proposed office of intellectual property. I’ll claim the former isn’t really addressed any better in the current system.
Major benefits: Kiss monopolies goodbye. Say hello to scientist directed research. Furthermore, the non-transferable ip allows for something more closely approximating a free market, which I’ll claim is actually a good thing.
The system seems to work pretty well to me. You can either strike out on your own and play the lottery of big bucks/utter destitution, or you can sign off the uncertain but potentially large rewards and go get a salaried job as a scientist. Many people chose stability over crazy risk and work in industry. There are even compromises between the two, such as academia.
Now of course the corporations are going to make money off of some inventions, though you can’t go whining about handing them your discovery if YOU chose the risk-averse path. Don’t neglect the oodles of other unprofitable scientists out there. Further factor in the costs of production and marketing and doing the actual business, and I would guess that all in all it’s a perfectly fair deal for the scientists.
Yes, yes, there are undoubtedly some inefficiencies, but I don’t think that you seriously believe that the real life implementation of the bureaucracy you’re proposing isn’t going to be anything other than a costly and wasteful sinkhole.
I suspect that anathma for anything corporate is biasing your argument. 🙂
I don’t think that my idea or anything like it will see the light of day within my lifetime. =)
But, it’s not my anathema for anything corporate, precisely. (I failed to finish a sentence in the original, which I have since corrected). It’s my loathing of large, monopolistic or collusive corporations, which will fuck with absolutely anything, including, but not limited to, the environment, the political system, and the economy to increase profit.
Smaller corporations might, but generally lack the wherewithal to do so. Kittens are cute and cuddly. Baby panthers are deadly.
Hmmm, shouldn’t the risk-averse scientists feel less drive to actually produce world-stunning work once they work for joe big company and don’t have to?
OTOH, I guess scu’s idea makes it really hard for someone to build a product that uses 5 different established ideas if joe product builder has to pay 5 random scientists for the rights to their ideas.
Also, I think I’d be insanely rich in Scu’s world.
Possibly– though I’m apt to disagree– but you’re missing the point. They chose the comfortable financially secure life, as is their perogative. If we take away the right of an individual to choose security over a system that has a potentially greater output, then that’s totalitarian, and I don’t want to live in that society. =/
Risk averse scientists could spend all day stressing out over the risks and financial troubles of their lives, and thus be less productive without a supportive framework.
When you make your millions in my world, remember who made the world 😉
Basically, the idea I have in mind is that a person would never be able to sign over ip.
I would support this revolution of yours.
By the way, Reality Capture Technologies owns the IP rights to this post I am making.